Talk:Gustav Mahler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Gustav Mahler as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish or French language Wikipedias.

Re: Stupid Nicknames and False Titles.

Am I the only person here who can *read sufficiently well* to be able to see that when Gabriel Engel writes -

"The mood at this point [in the Sixth Symphony] is closely akin to the finale of the Fourth, Mahler's Ode to Heavenly Joy"

- he is (i) referring merely to the *finale*, and (ii) not presenting or referring to any kind of 'title' *at all*?

I have to say: I find it DEEPLY SHOCKING that the above quotation is being offered as the sole justification for giving this work an *utterly spurious* 'title' which has *absolutely no documentary support* and *is not found in the Mahler literature*. To be brutally frank, people *should not be attempting to contribute to an 'online encyclopedia'* if they lack basic reading comprehension skills to the extent that they are unable to see that Engel is merely *characterising the movement* by means of a reference to the last movement of Beethoven's Ninth - a '4th-movement' vocal finale that is referred to - for perfectly understandable reasons - as the 'Ode to Joy'.

For crying out loud, people, how much *clearer* could Engel possibly have made it that he is merely asserting that the Mahler 4 finale can be felt to be, can be characterised as, the composer's 'Ode to Heavenly Joy' -- and NOT that the movement (or the whole symphony!) is somehow 'called' 'The Ode To Heavenly Joy'...???

Listen: if you people cannot see how your joyful ineptitude is polluting the wiki project through the accidental fabrication of spurious information, then I really don't want any more to do with it.

P.

It's not fabricated. As stated in the conversation below, the title can also be found most notably in Britannica. Whine and cry about how Britannica, for some reason or another, should be anathema to all of us, but they can't be discounted as a reputable source simply because of personal resentments some people here seem to hold about their philosophy in contrast with Wikipedia's. I must additionally note that I have to disagree with your assessment that Engel was "characterizing" the movement when he capitalized "Ode to Heavenly Joy." I also don't understand why you removed the information about the title "The Giant" as you gave no rationale for its excision. Furthermore, I would like, as politely as I possibly can, to ask that you refrain from the belittling remarks which you have intended for us to be demoralized by in respect to our confidence in our literacy. Batman Jr. 06:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Peer review Gustav Mahler has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

"in order to secure a post as artistic director of the prestigious Vienna Opera (Jews were prohibited from holding the post at that time)."

I'm not sure there was an official policy that said that, but there was a huge influence from Cosima Wagner, Richard's widow, that held the antisemitic oppinions of her late husband.

I think you're right (it's ages since I read a Mahler biog) - I'll insert the word "virtually" to be going on with. Expand it if you can --Camembert
Jews were converting to Catholicism in spades also to get appointed as professors of science in those final years of the Austro-Hungarian empire. So Cosima does not explain everything.
Anti-semitism wasn't an official policy, but it was effective enough to first force Mahler to convert in order to be employed, and later intensified to an extent that forced him out of Vienna entirely (to the States). Blintz 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Lots to clean up in my recent spate of edits. Will get to this tomorrow.

In that case, I won't edit the article until you've had a chance to look at it again, but if you get the chance could you double check something: were Klemperer and Walter really the "pupils" of Mahler? They were helped by him, certainly, but as far as I know, Mahler didn't have any formal pupils. --Camembert

Walter was Mahler's assistant at the Vienna State Orchestra starting in 1901, and conducted the premieres of both Das Lied and the 9th Symphony. He was entrusted with editting both scores for publication.

Klemperer might be better described as some one influenced by Mahler - he formed a friendship with Mahler 1906. Klemperer studied under Pfitnzer in Berlin formally.

Stirling Newberry

Yes, you've not really told me anything I didn't already know there :) Did Klemperer and Walter actually study under Mahler or not? And if not, did Mahler have any pupils at all? If you don't have anything to hand to check this, that's fine, I just thought you might be able to. --Camembert

Maurice Leonard characterized the relationship as Walter being Mahler's pupil. As has Michele Selvini, who wrote a short biographical sketch on Walter. I can find other examples of the characterization. Given that this is how people have written about it before - what makes you say he wasn't.

Klemperer is a more distant case, and some other word could be used.

But since we are split hairs - I will say that Walter was definitely Mahler's pupil, studying both his conducting and composing methods directly from the master.

I suppose we're using the word "student" in different ways. When I read in the article that Walter was a "student" of Mahler, I took that to mean that they had regular hour-long sessions together in which Mahler said "this is how you hold a baton, and this is how you beat time, and this is how you apporoach the business of putting an interpretation together". Of course, I don't dispute that Walter learned a lot from Mahler and that he was in some sense his "pupil", but I do think the wording of the article was potentially confusing (it confused me, anyway). It is a bit like saying that Mahler was a student of Wagner, which is true in a sense, but gives a misleading impression of what their relationship was. I'll alter the article slightly. --Camembert

Are you interested in drilling down into articles on the symphonies?

Stirling Newberry

Well, we've already got articles started on each of the symphonies (though not yet Das Lied) - they're all linked from the "List of works" section in this article (Symphony No. 6 (Mahler) and so on). They just cover the basics, really, at the moment - do feel free to expand them. --Camembert

Contents

[edit] Cause of death

Being fascinated by the morbidity of famous people, I was wondering if Gustav's cause of death has been represented accurately. He is known to have suffered from endocarditis, and he is reported to have seen this own culture plates. Now endocarditis is caused by streptococci is most people, so wasn't his cause of death the endocarditis? I'll see if I can find other records. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PS, this article suggests endocarditis as his cause of death. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Giant ??

Since when has Mahler's 5th been known as the Giant?? For that matter, since when has the 4th been known as the Ode to Heavenly Joy?? JackofOz 06:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, strange. I have never heard of these names either. I'm taking the liberty of removing these two subtitles (someone correct me if I'm wrong, and point me to a source). Antandrus 04:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
These nicknames are used on a basis that is somewhat regular, although they are quite often omitted when a person makes reference to either the 4th or 5th. The validity of the "Ode to Heavenly Joy" moniker is supported by this article from the Mahler Archives. The 5th is called "The Giant" in this disparaging review written in 1907 about the symphony. The review was also obtained from the Mahler Archives.
Upon further scrutiny of the wording of the article in which "Ode to Heavenly Joy" is found, I have concluded that it is somewhat ambiguous from that as to whether the name applies to the entire 4th or just the finale, so I will also provide further examples of mentions of the name I was able to find:
Even with the possibility of all the other sources being impugned, I should think Britannica alone would assure us enough of the titles not being fictitious. I shall take it upon myself to add them back. Batman Jr. 06:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I have in my possession several major, authoritative, scholarly works on Mahler and on Mahler symphonies and none of them list these titles for the 4th and 5th. Nor do any recordings I've ever seen. Furthermore, I have heard these two symphonies in concert in the past few years, and the program notes also did not mention these titles, and the program notes were prepared by experts on symphonic music. So I think these titles should be removed. However, to avoid impolite editing, I will not remove them in the near future. Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
It is true that these titles are seldom used and are certainly less commonplace than "The Titan" for the 1st or "The Tragic" for the 6th. I should think, however, that Britannica would be an authoritative enough source for demonstrating the correctness of these titles regardless of how often people acknowledge their existence. Batman Jr. 21:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree for the following reasons:
  • 1) In general I would go with the work of recent and reliable scholarly monographs about a topic over the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
  • 2) It is not as though Mahler himself liked or advocated the use of titles in his work. In fact, what I have read in general (including the program notes of the Mahler concert I went to by the N. Y. Philharmonic last Saturday) indicates that Mahler really was a partisan of absolute over program music, and that the programs, narratives, or titles he even used were concessions to the public rather than his own view of his own music.
  • 3) In general, it seems to me that, on any topic in Wikipedia or any general encyclopedia, one of the important functions of an editor is to make judicious decisions about what is essential and important about a topic and what are little niggling details that, if included, would give inappropriate weight to something minor and therefore give the reader an unbalanced view of the topic. For example, in the Wikipedia article about Henry Miller, someone had added that he was 5'8" tall, and another editor just took it out, with the explanation "trivia". And rightly so, because if someone wanted to read a full biography or do advanced research about Henry Miller, that might be of some relevance, but not in a general article with limited space. For example, it is well-known that Mahler walked with a slight limp, or peculiar motion of one of his legs. Theodor Reik discusses this at great length in one of his books. Should it be in the WP article about Mahler? I don't think so, it seems too trivial. So to me, the fact that someone, somewhere, once called these symphonies by those names, when the overwhelming majority of books, concert programs, etc. don't call them that, would be giving too much weight to something essentially trivial. By contrast, "Titan", "Tragic", and "Symphony of a Thousand", even though they're not essential, are at least common appelations for symphonies 1, 6, and 8. I genuinely appreciate your concern with getting the facts right and wanting to not neglect this information. Your concern is NOT trivial but rather shows you to have the concern for the facts that we all should have as Wikipedia editors. But I think listing them that way in Wikipedia would make the article unbalanced, unless you put in a long footnote about how rare they are except for the Brittanica. For me, the question is always, what will a general reader, who doesn't know about the topic, learn from a particular Wikipedia article. If a general reader read the Mahler article and thought that those names for the 4th and 5th had the same standing as the ones for the 1st, 6th, and 8th, she/he would actually go away with a false idea. That, to me, is the ultimate question, not what is in the Brittanica. I thought I have read on Wikipedia that we are trying to be better than the Brittanica. Jeremy J. Shapiro 22:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from. Even though there appears to be some historical basis for the use of the sobriquets in question, we need to consider how extensive their history actually is and judge from that whether they are really noteworthy enough to be included in a brief overview of Mahler which attempts to concentrate only on the most important aspects of his life and work. With that in mind, I feel the best solution to this problem might be the compromise of adding a footnote explaining the limited number of sources which use the titles. I'm unsure as to whether we should omit the titles altogether in the case that one doing research on Mahler may come across documentation which makes reference to either the 4th or 5th by title only and would not know what symphonies these titles are in reference to. It is, of course, possible to interpret the situation as being to the contrary as well by observing the dearth of documentation where the titles are mentioned at all, but even for those rarest instances of conjecture, it may be wise to take the precaution of amending their ambiguities when such precaution doesn't require that great of an expenditure of effort. Batman Jr. 00:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I thought you'd find the following excerpt from http://www.mahlerfest.org/notes_myth_reality.htm to be of interest: "It's nonetheless odd to think that in 1907 Mahler would be returning to titles and programs. For its 1893 Hamburg performance, he gave his First Symphony (which at the time was still a "tone poem in symphonic form") the name "Titan," after the Romantic novel by Jean Paul, and a detailed program, but by 1896 he had withdrawn it. The "Auferstehung" subtitle for No. 2 comes from the Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock text, but Mahler was not responsible for "Lied der Nacht" (No. 7) or "Sinfonie der Tausend" (No. 8), and in any case he had disavowed subtitles and programs by 1900. One can imagine his acceding to the suggestion of a plausible and promotable name like "Tragische" for the Vienna première, but the fact remains that he did not so title this symphony when he composed it."

Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you directing me to the article. It's very interesting. Thanks. Am I right that you brought up the excerpt because it systematically goes through all the titles except the ones for the 4th and 5th?
Now, about what we should do with the nicknames, you have quite a bit more experience than I do as a Wikipedia editor as I'm still sort of a newbie, so I'd really like to hear your input on what we should do. Should we add footnotes or get rid of the titles altogether? Batman Jr. 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the footnotes as a tentative compromise until you give me your input on what we should do. Batman Jr. 00:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As the initiator of this debate, I'm not altogether happy about showing 'The Giant' next to Symphony #5, but I accept the footnote solution as a reasonable one for now. But if a more recent source than 1907 can't be found, I might be tempted to make further changes. I've made a change to the footnote to make it read better. JackofOz 06:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Alright, that's good. Batman Jr. 21:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, this evening I looked through the book Gustav Mahler: The Symphonies, by Constantin Floros, translated from the German by Vernon and Jutta Wicker (Portland, Oregon: Amadeus Press, 1993). The German original was published in 1985. The book is a very detailed, complete book about Mahler's symphonies, including the history of their composition, Mahler's own statements and correspondence about them, some things about the response to them, and detailed analyses of each movement of each symphony. The author is or was chair of musicology at the University of Hamburg in Germany. What I gather from the book is this. Although Mahler apparently was ambivalent about the use of programs and titles to describe his symphonies, and went back and forth about some of them, i.e. publishing the program (i.e. narrative or meaning) and then withdrawing it, same with the titles, the only titles for which there is evidence that he used or accepted them during his lifetime or which are legitimate because of their content or composition history, are those for the 1st ("Titan", which he used for a performance of the 1st but then withdrew, but Floros thinks that it is legitimate because of what is known about his ideas about it while composing it as well as the musical content), the 2d (which Mahler didn't himself call "Resurrection Symphony" but which can legitimately be called that because the last movement is based on a poem about resurrection), and the Sixth ("Tragic, which Bruno Walter said came from Mahler himself and was performed under that title during Mahler's lifetime, even though there's no other corroborating information about Mahler calling it that), as well as "The Song of the Earth", which Floros, like various other authors and interpreters, considers a symphony. There is no evidence of any other title used or approved of by Mahler for any of the other symphonies, even though clearly several of them have "programs" or "themes", e.g. the Third and Eighth. "Symphony of a Thousand" was a phrase used by a concert promoter named Emil Gutmann, and is just a catchphrase that doesn't have much to do with the content, which Mahler called his "Mass". Mahler referred to the LAST MOVEMENT of the Fourth as Das Himmlische Leben ("the heavenly life"), and Floros emphasizes that that song (previously composed by Mahler to a poem from Des knaben Wunderhorn) was the inspiration for both the Third and Fourth Symphonies. But Mahler never thought of it as the title for either, since the point of the two symphonies was to describe the entire process of cosmic evolution that led from plant life to heavenly life, which he identified with love. So "Heavenly Life" is correct as a title for the last movement of the Fourth, but not for the symphony itself. With regard to the Fifth, there is no evidence of Mahler ever using or approving of a title or theme, and Floros says Walter, Mahler's friend and disciple, said that Mahler never suggested that any "extra-musical thoughts or emotions" had exerted any influence on the Fifth, and he also doesn't mention "Giant" or any other title. However, Floros believes that it has certain meanings having to do with death and love, and based on his analysis, "Giant" would be a weird and rather inappropriate title even for these themes. Since I (JJS) have never seen any other reference to such a title for the Fifth (nor honestly does it make sense to me in terms of the symphony itself), I consider both it and the "Ode to Heavenly Joy" as inappropriate for the Wikipedia article to refer to the 5th and 4th respectively. The titles for the Seventh and Eighth aren't really accurate either (Mahler referred to two MOVEMENTS of the 7th as Nachtmusik (night music) but not the symphony itself and explicitly rejected the title for the symphony as a whole. But I suppose these titles for the 7th and 8th are more acceptable just for the reason that they have become catchphrase, even if erroneous. But the same does not hold for those titles for the 4th and 5th, since they're not even popular. My own preferred solution (it would be useful to know what other editors think) would be as follows, given that we're trying to produce a really accurate encyclopedia article: 1) preface the list of symphonies by a statement that, despite the fact that Mahler was inspired by various ideas and images during the composition of his symphonies, nevertheless he disassociated himself from the use of titles and programs for them. 2) State that nevertheless there is historical precedent from Mahler's statements or performance practice for the use of titles for 1, 2, and 6. 3) State that there is a convention sometimes to refer to 7 and 8 by titles, even though Mahler did not use or condone these. This could also be indicated typographically if someone thinks it's useful, e.g. parentheses, asterisks, or whatever. Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Three Pintos

Does anyone care about this? Should we add Mahler to the Opera composers category? The connection to the Webers is at least interesting. --Chinasaur 04:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

His completion of the Weber opera is interesting, but putting him in the category of Opera composers insinuates a reputation greatly different from his actual one, which is that of a symphonist. He primarily concerned himself with the composition of abstract and large-scale orchestral works; his work on the opera is marginalized as a consequence of this. Batman Jr. 05:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Tradition is sloppiness"

According to the German Wikiquote and other books, the quotation ("tradition is sloppiness") is incomplete. The full sentence translates roughly into "What you theater people call tradition is in fact laziness and sloppiness" ("Was ihr Theaterleute Tradition nennt, das ist Bequemlichkeit und Schlamperei", which has been shortened in the Wikiquote). Mahler did in fact honor tradition, as long as it meant keeping the spirit of the music alive, which he expressed in another famous sentence: "Tradition is the preservation of the flame, not adoration of the ashes" ("Tradition ist Bewahrung des Feuers, nicht Anbetung der Asche").


Who cares what German Wikipedia says about him? He wasn't German, Austrian, Swiss or even a decendant of a German family.
Reply to the above comment: I read both English and German and find the German version of Wikipedia to be often quite dependable. So it does matter what the Germans say about Mahler, for they sometimes have access to German sources fairly unknown in the English speaking world. -anonymous

[edit] Keys of Mahler symphonies

I changed the way the keys are listed for the symphonies as an attempt to compromise with an anon user who wanted to remove the key only for the 5th symphony, and I like being consistent wherever possible. Since Mahler often ended in a key other than the one in which he began, I put in both keys (this the method adopted in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians). Anyone feel free to suggest another way. Antandrus 19:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can I add an objection, albeit six months late: many classical works begin and end in different keys, but they always have generally one accepted key. For example, Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto Nos. 2 and 3, beginning in c minor and d minor, respectively, end in C major and D major; both are listed in their respective minor keys. Similarly, Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 is advertised in c minor and ends in C major. Mind you, it's not necessarily the starting key all the time, and while an alert reader might notice that these are all cases of modulating to the tonic major at the end, I point out that Chopin's Scherzo No. 2 begins and is generally listed in b-flat minor, but ends in D-flat major. TheProject 16:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, most music publishers defer to the will of the composer when it comes to listing the key (ex. Barber, &c.) of a piece. Blintz 09:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Das Lied von der Erde

An anon editor moved Das Lied from song cycles to symphonies; I'm moving it back. I recognize that the German title contains the word Symphonie Das Lied von der Erde: Eine Symphonie für eine Tenor- und eine Alt- (oder Bariton-) Stimme und Orchester (nach Hans Bethges "Die chinesische Flöte") -- but the Library of Congress catalogues it under symphonies, and by Mahler's own numbering he avoided counting it as a symphony. I think it fits better under song cycles, but I'm open to comment. Antandrus 04:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Formally, Das Lied is in fact both a song cycle and a symphony. Mahler's main reason for not counting the opus as a symphony was his own superstition to deliver a ninth. Both categorisations make sense, but one should note, that Das Lied is not a mere song cycle: it satisfies the form of the symphonic cycle as much as any of the other late Mahler symphonies. -- 85.180.137.57 14:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
It's a good point; I added a note to this effect on the works list. Antandrus (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last word

The article says that Mahler's last word was "Mozart". Do we have a source for this? Everything on Google that indicates that this might be true has been copied off the WP article. In the meantime, I've taken it out; somebody can please put it back in if we can confirm the source. TheProject 00:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have a source in a book written by a dutch Mahler-specialist, Eveline Nikkels (title: Mahler, een leven in tien symfonieën, 2003, Bluestone Publishers, p.95). But no reference as to where she got the fact from. 27 Apr 2006 -Magic Neophyte
And, somehow, neither of you thought of looking in the obvious place. By which I mean Alma's 'Gustav Mahler: Memories and Letters'. For heaven's sake, the relevant extract is even on the web: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/9/841 -Pf.

[edit] Most recent link addition

Seems to me the link contains too much information, and not enough about Mahler. (That, and in my opinion, it doesn't look very professional, but I can live with that, but the deluge of information is a bit too much for me.) Any opinions? What's the policy on external links? TheProject 17:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your comment inspired me to take out the references that don't have to do with Mahler. It doesn't seem professional to me to have Wikipedia articles about composers to have references either to Grove's dictionary or to a general music appreciation textbook. When I have a chance, I'll add the La Grange biography and one or two other things. Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, if references were consulted during the writing of the article, those references need to stay there, as long as they do contain articles that are relevant to the material (both do). I think that policy is different for external links, but I'm not sure. I'd also point out that both Grove and Machlis are sectioned, as opposed to the link I pointed out. TheProject 14:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
This makes me realize that there are two things about the Wikipedia orientation to references that I don't understand:
A) Since articles change and grow and evolve over time and have things added and taken out and are worked on by different people, what does it mean to say that certain references were consulted during the writing of the article? There are parts of articles that have been removed entirely. Are references to stay there forever even if the parts of the articles for which they were originally put there aren't even in the article anymore? How does one even know, after an article has been worked on over the years, what references were actually consulted for the parts of an article?
B) What happens when better or more up-to-date or more primary references supersede earlier, more secondary ones? To take an example, what if someone puts something in an article, using as a reference a secondary work, e.g. in a biography of Mahler somebody puts something in that they read in an introduction to music appreciation, which itself only got that information from the authors' having read a biography of Mahler. Now let's say someone works on the Wikipedia article who has actually read a biography of Mahler. Shouldn't that reference supersede the earlier reference? To me it doesn't make sense to have both references as references. For example, if someone who was a scientist in the area of plant physiology was familiar with the current up-to-date textbook of plant physiology, doesn't it make sense, in an article about plant physiology, to have that reference supersede an earlier one from the Cambridge one-volume desk encyclopedia, just because the earlier Wikipedian happened to have read it in the desk encyclopedia?
In any case, I would be grateful for clarification of these points by my fellow Wikipedians. Jeremy J. Shapiro 01:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I hope I didn't offend anybody when I suggested the link be removed -- I was almost going to call you out on Template:WP:POINT, but I'm not half as experienced a Wikipedian as I would like to be. Personally, I believe such a link would be more appropriate on an article about 19th century Viennese music (or 19th century classical music) in general, as it contains much more information than is specific to Mahler (and call me a perfectionist, but one thing that really annoyed me about the link was that there wasn't a "section" on Mahler, but it was divided chronologically instead. The Grove and the Machlis both have a section devoted to Mahler, so it makes more sense to me that way).
In response to your questions... A) I put my references in when I did my overhaul of the article. (It's become a pet project of mine, you might say, and I'm a little protective. I apologize for that.) As for the general case, I'm not sure -- I've been here for a shorter length than you have, it appears. In my opinion, the references should stay there -- unless they are particularly outdated, which leads me to my discussion on B) I'm not sure why a more up-to-date reference would be a primary reference. Shouldn't it be the other way -- the more direct reference is the earlier one, which supercedes the later work?
I agree with you when you say that more direct sources should be included on Wikipedia. Having said that, it is often the case that encyclopedias are the most reliable source to depend upon. (By the way, if you haven't noticed already, I'm a big fan of books over websites as references -- for websites, I often rely on a very small, select list. I personally would not have a problem at all with adding another Mahler biography to the references list, at least not as much as I would with a website link.)
By the way, I would have suggested that you put the link under the references section, except that it doesn't appear that you've edited the article at all, except for adding and deleting some references. If there are references that bring new material to the article, then perhaps you might want to add that new material to the article first, and then adding your references into the references section?
But I'd love to get some more help from the top. I still consider myself fairly new here, too. TheProject 02:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I am not an expert or long-time Wikipedian, I am still learning basic things about the culture and principles here, that's why I asked my questions. With regard to point B, I am just operating on the general principles used in the world of research and scholarship, which is that in general later works supersede earlier ones on the grounds that, if done properly, they will have incorporated and critiqued the results of earlier work and gone beyond them, in the case of history or biography will have consulted sources not used by or not accessible by earlier authors, and so on. So in general I would expect a more recent scholarly biography of a composer to, in effect, supersede, although not necessarily invalidate an earlier work, although certain earlier works are classics and therefore should be in a list of references. I guess my thinking about references is shaped especially by the idea that if a person were a novice about a topic in Wikipedia and the article were an introduction to the topic and the person were then going to do further reading and research, the references should include major or standard works about the topic and, in the case of composers for example, should keep up with the current state of writing, thinking, and research about that person (which is why I imagined that they then wouldn't want to go to something introductory, like a musical dictionary or a book about music appreciation or a general history of music, but rather for more specific and detailed stuff about Mahler, which is why I rather precipitously took out those two references, partly, I confess, because I mistakenly thought that's what you meant about the links that shouldn't be there). So, for example, the biography of Mahler that I know best is by Kurt Blaukopf, and I added it as a reference. But I know that the more recent (and much more extensive) one by La Grange is now considered the most reliable and standard biography. So if a high school or college student were going to consult Wikipedia because they needed to write a paper about Mahler, I would consider it almost irresponsible not to inform them about the La Grange biography -- it's later, it uses materials that weren't consulted by or available to Blaukopf, and so on. But in general the Wikipedia articles that I have spent time working on are scattered, inconsistent, almost random, and, frankly, of poor quality on the reference side, almost to the point of embarrassment, compared to any other really decent encyclopedia that I know or have or use. And perhaps I just really don't understand Wikipedia's policy or culture about references, except that Wikipedia does say that it wants to be a really good encyclopedia, and to me that means having a responsible and reliable list of references for every at least substantial article. I think that the Mahler article is terrific, you've obviously done very good work, that's in fact why I haven't really contributed to it, because most of my work on Wikipedia is based on my reading articles that I care about and know something about and then discovering things about them that seem wrong or unbalanced or missing or poorly written, and then feeling that I need to improve or correct them, and I care and know a fair amount about Mahler, but didn't find anything that seemed problematic about this article, so I didn't feel that need to add or change anything, but did want to simply round out the list of references to include things that I know are important or standard works about Mahler that someone wanting to pursue the study of Mahler would want to read. Jeremy J. Shapiro 08:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind my formatting the comments so it's a little better to read. (I screwed up originally.) If you think the La Grange biography adds information, please, by all means, add that reference, and add the information that the biography contributes to the actual article as well. I'd love to see someone add even more relevant information to the article. It seems to me that it would be irresponsible to add the link and add no further information, although, some people often do not have the time to do that. Otherwise, it would seem that your reference adds nothing to the article, which I don't believe is the case at all; I'll try to check your reference out when I can.
The only real reasons why I don't like the link is that it seems to belong in a more general article, rather than a specific article on Mahler (as there is no section on Mahler, like I've mentioned, because it's chronologically ordered), and that it doesn't look like it's formatted very well. So if there aren't any objections, I'm going to be taking out the link fairly soon, but please, go ahead and add information from the La Grange biography and put it into the references page. Whether Grove and Machlis are completely superceded by La Grange and should be taken out is a decision I leave to someone who has read La Grange and edited the article on the basis of La Grange, which I take to be you, once you edit it. Hopefully that resolves whatever issue there is. TheProject 14:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thrice homeless

I think that the quotation from Mahler about him being thrice homeless should be included in the article. It captures something important about his relationship to the world and to his different cultural backgrounds. And it is a well-known quotation from him. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The original quote was never removed in the first place. The version that was removed was a duplicate of already existing material. Thanks for your contributions on the article, by the way. TheProject 03:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not used at all nicknames, 4&5

I think I'm going to take out the "nicknames" for symphonies 4 and 5. If nobody uses them today, then it seems silly to have them there. If they belong anywhere, it's on the specific pages for the pieces themselves. 216.160.94.182 05:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel vindicated now. Isn't it great how the obvious solution always gets there in the end, but might require a few meanderings and debates beforehand. Cheers JackofOz 11:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough to me. I just wish the poster at the top of the page would have been a little less, um, emotional. Could we not have the accusations of low reading comprehension, please? I hope nobody's mad at me -- I wasn't even the person who posted those titles in the first place! ;-) TheProject 06:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summaries

There's no need to make personal attacks in your edit summaries. I understand what you're trying to say. Please refrain from shouting and making personal attacks.

As for the quotation marks: double quotes were used in the rest of the article, and I was trying to make it more consistent. This I think should be consistent across the entire page. TheProject 15:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pfistermeister on names

I highly appreciate Pfistermeister's work and concern for accuracy on the Mahler article and various other music articles, and don't object to his point that some of the names, such as "Resurrection" and "Titan", don't appear on the scores and in the New Grove. However, the full story on these is more complicated, e.g. Bruno Walter says that Mahler himself used the term "Tragic" for the 6th. I don't know if readers of Wikipedia need to know such things, and I'm fine with Pfistermeister's framing of the status of the titles, my point is only that because Mahler kept working on his symphonies and changed his way of thinking about their programs over time -- and about the concept of programs in general -- some of these names have a history and aren't just either completely right or completely wrong. As I said, I am a fan of Pfistermeister's work. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jeremy. You raise a good point: these titles do 'have a history'. Why not just add the justification/origin for each title after the sentence where I explain where it *doesn't* come from...?!?!? Bests, Pf.

Well, this is where I get into an issue that I think deserves broader, "policy" discussion and where I think that I may differ from some other Wikipedia editors in general in my sense of just how detailed and scholarly a Wikipedia article ought to be. I notice in some of the music articles, for example, a level of detail about composers's biographies that I don't think would be of interest or relevance to a person just wanting a good general introduction to a composer. I notice the same thing in other contexts. For example, I was looking at a philosophy article today that has the kind of bibliography that would be relevant to a philosophy graduate student but not to someone wanting a few good general introductions to that philosopher, plus the works aren't commented, so a general reader might just throw up her/his hands in overwhelmedness. Anyway, I don't know that I think that the history of these titles of Mahler symphones requires more comment than what you've put there, and I guess I was raising it more as a general issue to think about. And I do wish we had more general agreement about criteria for such things as the level of detail in the music and other articles. By the way, maybe there should be a short classical music article about titles in general, dealing with the whole issue of the differences among titles that appear on scores, titles that are known to have been used informally by the composer, titles that were changed by the composer, titles that just have gotten stuck on to pieces because of some external circumstance (like "Symphony of a Thousand"), and so on. Perhaps there is such an article and I'm just not aware of it. Then there could be a wikilink to that article... Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if such an article would be particularly useful, since these naming issues only really come up with a small handful of composers. It's simply not that big of a deal. Mahler just happens to be a particularly egregious and problematic example, which is why there's been so much wrangling about it. I think the article as it stands just now (on 12/13/05) does a good job of explaining his "titles" without getting too bogged down in details or making a mountain out of a molehill. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 16:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of Vandalism by Pfistermeister

Pfistermeister, this is the second time in 24 hours you have accused me of vandalism. I resent that very much. After I made my edit to the discussion of the 10th symphony yesterday, and you reverted it, I sent a message to your talk page which referred to my edits being done in a serious-minded and conscientious way, in the spirit of continuously improving the quality of articles, which in some cases means removing unnecessary words. I hardly think that this displays evidence of vandalistic intent, but rather, inclusiveness and cooperative consultation, which is what Wikipedia is all about. Unfortunately, you have not had the courtesy to acknowledge or respond to that message.

My latest edit was about "Songs of a Wayfarer". You replaced that name with the literal translation (which is rarely seen in English speaking countries), and I restored the standard English title that everybody knows, and I took the trouble to explain my reasons. What do I get in return? - further slanderous accusations of vandalism. I’m not even going to debate you about the subject of that edit here and now, because unfortunately you’ve gone further by becoming very arrogant and high-handed indeed, and using personal abuse. For starters, I am not "sonny". Secondly, your claim to be a person who "knows far more than" me is preposterous and very juvenile. Both of these statements reflect very badly on you. Regardless of what you know or think you know about any given subject, we are all equals here. Any editor can make whatever edits they like, and common consensus will be the judge of whether they stay or go. Consensus is often arrived at only after considerable debate; it is certainly not characteristed by one person claiming to know far more than others. You’ve been in Wikipedia for only a relatively short time, and you have much to learn about courtesy, politeness, and cooperation. I suggest you start immediately. JackofOz 00:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Pfistermeister: 1) please learn to use the User:talk space. You have no edits there. People have tried to contact you on your talk page. In the entire time you have been on Wikipedia, since August, you have only made four edits in the article talk space; this is a collaborative project, and conflicts and disagreements are ironed out on the article talk pages. 2) What JackofOz did is NOT vandalism by a long stretch. "Songs of a Wayfarer" IS the common translation in English. Please discuss here. Thanks. Antandrus (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Not interested in your hot air or your chat page. I merely supply factual information, properly researched, and seek to correct the ludicrous rubbish that currently makes this site a laughing-stock in the outside world. You people clearly have different priorities; that's your business. P.
If you have such a low opinion of this site, you do both yourself and Wikipedia a disservice by being involved at all. If you want to get involved, please play by the rules, which includes not regarding yourself as somehow separate and apart from "you people". Contributions from those who do not even consider themselves members of the community are inherently vandalistic. As in any human community, crimes have their consequences. JackofOz 04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isnt mahler born at may?

Nope. He was born in July, and died in May. JackofOz 14:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did Mahler really say this?

from the article: "I am thrice homeless," Mahler once said. "As a native of Bohemia in Austria, as an Austrian among Germans, and as a Jew throughout the world. Everywhere an intruder, never welcomed."

I cannot find a source for this statement - which is uncannily similar to a note made by Anton Rubinstein in his notebooks in the 1860s or 1870s (see Rubinstein article). I would be grateful for information. --Smerus 14:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

See Alma Mahler: 'Memories and Letters', p.109. In view of Alma's well-documented unreliability on countless similar matters, I would treat this (and all her other uncorroborated stories) with suspicion. Perhaps a cautionary parenthesis might be in order? Pf.
The quote isn't from Alma, but from a letter that Mahler wrote to a long-term female friend of his. I don't have the text in front of me at the moment, but that quote is the one that appears in standard biographies, and is very much in line with Mahler's other comments (he even recalled wanting to be a martyr as a child!) Blintz 10:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus numbers

Did Mahler's works even have opus numbers? The article, as it stands, gives none of them if they exist. —This unsigned comment is by 65.185.213.33 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 March 2006 UTC.

No, Mahler's works do not have opus numbers. Microtonal 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is only ONE Mahler that people will recognize, and that is GUSTAV Mahler!

So I think that simply typing in "Mahler" in the search box should automatically bring up the composer Gustav and skip the list of other Mahlers.

Agreed. Done - Jon Stockton 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Actually no, Mahler isn't that uncommon a surname. Halfdan T. Mahler, Margit Mahler, Kurt Mahler, Nicolas Mahler, Rick Mahler, Horst Mahler Antidote 08:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musical link between ninth and Rückert-lieder?

In the Mahler article, section 'Music' it says:

"No credible connections with free-standing songs can be demonstrated [in the 8th, 9th and 10th symphony]"

Is there not a musical link between the ninth symphony and Mahler's song 'Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen' from the Rückert-lieder?

I am no expert in musicology, just following my ears...

Magic Neophyte

Do you mean the transposed (but intervallically exact) melodic reference to the 'On the heights the day is beautiful' line (from the 4th of the 'Kindertotenlieder') that appears on the last page of Mahler 9? Mahler is often over-interpreted as 'quoting himself' when in fact he's merely 'writing in the same manner'; but this seems a pretty unambiguous self-reference to me. Pfistermeister 21:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is indeed an unmistakable link between the concluding bars of 'Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen' and the 4th (adagietto) movement from the 5th Symphony.

[edit] Beyond symphonies and Lieder?

What about his early chamber music and his violin concerto [1]?

Has anybody ever listened to them?

And what about his piano quartet in A minor? Is it an incomplete work with only one movement? (Frigoris 03:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

  • I've never heard any of those, and in my studies barely heard even any mention of them. I think that they're academic works from his student days, and so probably aren't worth discussing in an article of this length. Blintz 15:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Read carefully: the review about the alleged Mahler violin concerto is dated April 1, 1999. I think that says enough. - The piano quartet movement is indeed an early work from Mahler's student days, dated 1876 and widely influenced by Brahms. --FordPrefect42 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Quartet movement is a beautiful piece of writing showing a great deal of promise. It has achieved a great deal of popularity in this country. JackofOz 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dividing sections

I think some of these sections are a little long. I began dividing some sections already. A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 16:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cornet in Symphony No. 7

Is there a cornet in the seventh? There is no mention in the Orchestration section of that article. However, there was a cornet mentioned in this article in the ===Symphonies=== section. (under ==Music==). A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. A cornet appears on the instrumentation list in the front of the score (Dover's reprint of it, anyway), but in five minutes of flipping through the score itself I failed to find a single note actually assigned to the cornet. I won't swear there isn't one -- but if there is, its a small and obscure part. If I have a chance to listen to the whole thing with the score I'll check, but if I had to put money down today I'd guess it is a misprint in the instrumentation list. TaigaBridge 09:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're right. I also have that Dover score, and I see it mentioned only on the "Instrumentation" page. It's nowhere to be found in the score itself. Especially in the fortissimo tutti passages it would make no sense to leave one brass player sitting there twiddling his thumbs; it must be a misprint. Antandrus (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not I was actually able to find it. At rehearsal number 275 in the 5th movement, a passage in the 1st trumpet in F is given the instruction "auf einem kleinen Piston" (on a small cornet). So technically the 1st trumpet is intended to double on cornet for that short time. However I am unsure if this is actually done today. 24.91.251.238 04:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, right you are; and it goes on for seventeen bars, past rehearsal 276. I completely missed it. Last time I played this piece I don't remember if the trumpet player switched or not (I rather doubt it). Good catch! Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recordings

I wanted to add a paragraph such as

Completing a Mahler cycle has become for conductors an aim as wished for as a Beethoven cycle.
The conductor whose complete Mahler has dominated recordings is perhaps Leonard Bernstein.
Conductors such as Pierre Boulez, Sir Simon Rattle and Claudio Abbado have completed their own celebrated cycles. Michael Tilson Thomas with San Francisco Symphony and Riccardo Chailly with the Concertgebouw have also completed their own interpretations of Mahler. Two conductors, who have in the past put their own mark on Mahler's symphonies are Sir John Barbirolli and Herbert von Karajan.

somewhere in wikipedia, but don't know where. Does anyone have any suggestions? --Atavi 12:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a paragraph like this one in place of the "Interpreters" paragraph currently in the main article. "Interpreters" is just a huge pile of names, with no indication which ones are strongly associated with him vs. which have merely conducted some Mahler at some point but aren't famous for it.
While we are on the subject, how come Klaus Tennstedt isn't mentioned either in Atavi's paragraph OR the Interpreter's list? He is who I would name (and have often heard named) as the #1 Mahler conductor, ahead of Solti and Bernstein. "Celebrated" seems a trifle strong in reference to the other cycles named.



Bernstein might better belong in the "influence" section -- at least if you subscribe to the theory that Bernstein believe Mahler to be the pinnacle of symphonists, whom he desperately wanted to imitate as a composer and never did succeed in doing.
--TaigaBridge 03 Sep 06
I wasn't aware of the Tennstedt cycle; I don't claim to be a Mahler expert. I've searched a bit, and it seems to have received favourable comments. I think it should be added right away in the interpreters list, and should be included in a potential paragraph about recordings.
I also think, after having searched a bit more, that conductors such as Mitropoulos and Kubelik could be included.
I agree that the Interpreters paragraph is a huge pile of names, and could be improved. Of course my own paragraph could be a start, but I've been reluctant to make such an edit, before anyone appeared to concur with me. I hope more people could write their opinion on the subject and perhaps make their own suggestions about potential text changes.
As far as Bernstein goes, Mahler's influence to Bernstein as a composer should also be mentioned. About conducting, I await the opinions of more people.
--Atavi 12:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And of course, Willem Mengelberg and Bruno Walter as historical choices, which I completely neglected to mention. I think that the text of the interpreters section could be expanded to say a few words about the most important conductors --Atavi 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


I propose that the following text should replace the current interpreters section:

In the late twentieth century, new musicological methods led to the extensive editing of his scores, leading to various attempts to complete the tenth symphony, such as by Deryck Cooke, and improved version of the others.
--Recordings--
Over the years, Mahler symphonies have gained immense popularity, so that there is a wide array of available recordings aside from frequent live performances. Historical choices would be Willem Mengelberg and Bruno Walter, both of whom worked with Mahler himself. Dimitri Mitropoulos is a conductor who contributed greatly to the spread of Mahler premiering some of the composer's works in the U.S. He recorded all of Mahler's symphonies. Conductors who in the past have put their own mark on certain Mahler symphonies are Herbert von Karajan, Otto Klemperer and Sir John Barbirolli. Leonard Bernstein, Bernard Haitink and Klaus Tennstedt have completed their Mahler cycles to high acclaim. Claudio Abbado, Sir Simon Rattle, Pierre Boulez and Michael Tilson Thomas have more recently worked on their own cycles, all of them very successful. Mahler symphonies have developed a popularity among conductors comparable to Beethoven's symphonies, so the list of interpreters is long and includes Oskar Fried, Hermann Scherchen, Riccardo Chailly, who has completed his own cycle, Sir Georg Solti, Rafael Kubelík, whose interpretation of the first symphony dominates the scene, Gilbert Kaplan -an amateur whose second is celebrated- Carlo Maria Giulini, Jascha Horenstein, Lorin Maazel, Zubin Mehta, Markus Stenz, Christoph von Dohnányi, Benjamin Zander, Antoni Wit, Uri Caine, Daniele Gatti.

--Atavi 13:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Mahler etymology discussion

I think we should discuss whether the etymology of the name Mahler should be discussed in the article. My opinion is that it's interesting information, but it is a burden on the article. Perhaps we could find another way of including it?-Atavi 08:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard, if we're going to start discussing the origins of the surname "Mahler" then there's no reason not to argue doing the same for Stravinsky, Chopin, Mozart, and Beethoven. Biographical pages should stick to the person in question and their work. If there was a separate article called Mahler, perhaps there we could have some info on the origins and use it as a disambig page. Antidote 08:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of extended information about Alma Mahler

It seems to me that although the text written by User: Pfistermeister and removed by User:Antidote is about Alma Mahler, it is relevant to Gustav, and should infact be included in the Gustav article, along perhaps with a more detailed discussion in the Alma article --Atavi 08:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Again, the article already needs to be pruned down a bit, especially the "Influence" section as it appears to be one big commentary rather than a voice-less biographical reciting. We shouldn't add sections which really have little relevance. For example, I'm sure there's some great anecdote about Mahler and another composer, but we're not going to create a whole 'nother information section just for that, so there's no reason to add this. Antidote 08:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the information in the Alma text indeed seems anecdotal, but the text also contains some interesting and important insight into the relationship between Gustav and Alma. Perhaps the text could be condensed into two or three lines, with the rest going to the Alma entry.-Atavi 09:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yea, sure. Antidote 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I will do that, as soon as I find an opportunity. -Atavi 13:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Rather than 3 lines, it turned out to be 8 in the later life section. However, I think that they are as concise as they can be.--Atavi 13:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Language

Is this page translated from an original German article - it reads as though it is. The English is clumsy and overstated.


For example:

Critics are no longer to be found who will insist that Mahler's popularity is a fad or a craze that will shortly pass; ...

and note also:

Schoenberg, for example, almost a full generation younger than Mahler, came to venerate the older man as a "saint": an exemplary figure, selfessly devoted to art, generous to younger composers, and badly treated in the same way he himself was badly treated; Schoenberg could still, however, display a complicated attitude to the music and even speak of having had an "aversion" to it.

Is this second example a World record attempt for either the longest possible sentence - or for the most frequent use of punctuation?

[edit] Thanks for picking up on interpretive comment! (Mahler)

Hi Atavi

I think I'm posting in the right place to send you a message - I'm a new user, so many apologies if I'm in the wrong place (and feel free to delete if I am).

Just wanted to say thanks for picking up on my edit - yes it is pretty interpretive: I hadn't noticed because I was aiming at undoing the presentation of the opposing view as unquestioned fact.

I'm worried though that you will think I'm either an Alma-fan or simply a feminist, with no musical/biographical interest in Mahler - and that I'm posting with removing misogynist views as my only agenda. Actually I have no interest in Alma - I'm writing my Musicology PhD on Gustav. I just believe that the traditional musicological attitude towards Alma actually gets in the way of any kind of sensible understanding of Gustav's life - and music. I think the accusation that Alma's behaviour is meddling and petty either needs to be seen as a historical phenomenon itself --- and needs contextualizing, or should be felt to be too messy an issue to handle in a short biography of Gustav.

So I've gone back and suggested losing the description "petty" altogether - as I think it's probably simplest. What do you think?

multi-wall


Hi multi-wall
I've decided to reply in the Mahler talk page, so other interested parties will have the opportunity to participate.
You're right about deleting "petty". It's a strong word. I wrote it, searching for a word to describe things like this:

From Alma_Problem#Letters: Thus her deletion of Mahler's references to the presents he bought or offered her protected her claims that he hardly ever gave her gifts

But I think the text is better without the word. Interested people will read the Alma Problem article if they want to find details.
Regards
--Atavi 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Atavi

Yes, I think you’re right – and the Alma Problem page is already well linked to from the Gustav Mahler page.

Hmm, I don’t think I’ve ever collaborated on writing about music (collaborative playing and composing, yes) – but it works, doesn’t it!

By the way, I do also really recognize what you were getting at with “petty” – and the whole Alma/Gustav situation is an interesting one (complicated further I think by late nineteenth century (German-language) modes of talking and behaving – especially in artistic circles). A lot of what they did/said sounds somewhat diva-ish/histrionic by today’s standards. But, context not withstanding, from what I can work out they did both hurt each other, and did both behave like children. Just very talented ones.


multi-wall

Yes multi-wall,
It does work quite well.
--Atavi 10:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/s/Talk%7EGustav_Mahler_2c25.html"